維持轉售價格規範於我國公平交易法上之定位

Positioning of Resale Price Maintenance in The Fair Trade Law of Taiwan.

張君任(Jiun-Renn Chang)

指導教授 ： 黃銘傑

國立臺灣大學/法律學院/科際整合法律學研究所/碩士(2014年)

https://doi.org/10.6342/NTU.2014.00711

摘要

本文主要目的為探討我國現行公平交易法第18條維持轉售價格規範之性質以及主管機關管制手段之合理性，其中將論及第19條與第18條之互動關係。另外，第18條構成要件及相關爭議之釐清，以及公平會於2012年所提出之修正草案，亦為本文之研究範圍。
我國公平交易法因承襲多國法制，其結果將垂直價格限制與垂直非價格限制分別立法，就違法性認定方面，有著截然不同之處理方式。前者以當然違法判斷，個案事實一旦符合法條文義即該當違法；後者以合理原則加以審查，尚須審查該商品市場占有率、市場結構、交易條件等。二者之違法性判定方式大不相同。然而，諸多國內外研究均指出，垂直價格限制與垂直非價格限制對於經濟效率與市場競爭所造成之影響並無不同，二者之界線並非涇渭分明，更多的情況是必須兩者綜合判斷後方能得出結論，先驗地假設價格限制之可非難較高，並非正確的立法模式。
另外，於第18條修法草案（新法第19條）中，將其置於限制競爭章，並使效力規定修正為禁止規定，且提出正當理由得以阻卻違法之概念，亦將服務納入規範客體，均值得肯定，惟第19條修法草案（新法第20條）第4款與第5款之修正，將不公平競爭與限制競爭之概念混淆，使維持轉售價格適用法條之選擇上，陷入解釋方式與體系認知之兩難，使得現行法第19條本已複雜難解之規範方式，於修法後更形扭曲，使得正確理解維持轉售價格規範此一目的，難以達成。
綜上，本文藉由整理並觀察歷年來公平會之處分書，歸納分析後，建議刪除現行法第18條，而將垂直價格限制與非價格限制併以第19條第6款加以規範，並就審查模式提出一種新的思考方式，期待能對我國維持轉售價格規範法制有所貢獻。

關鍵字

維持轉售價格 ； 當然違法 ； 合理原則 ； 經濟分析 ； 公平競爭

並列摘要

The main purposes of the thesis are discussion on the essential of Article 18 in the Fair Trade Law of Taiwan (hereinafter “the Act”) and whether such regulation on resale price maintenance is reasonable or not. Due to the existence of difficultie in separating unfair competition behavior and the restraint of competition when dealing with the aforementioned issue, the author also touhches upon the interaction between Article 18 and 19. In addition, clarifying the constitutive requirements of Article 18 and the amended draft of the Act is also covered by the thesis.
Owing to the fact that the Act contains influences from legislation of various countries, it leads to the result of separating the regulation of vertical price restrictions and vertical nonprice restrictions in different provisions in the Act. The former is based on the “per se rule”, while the latter “rule of reason” which needed to taken into considiration many conditions, such as market share, the structure of market to be examined. As a consequence, how to determine illegality differs in the vertical price restrictions and vertical nonprice restrictions in Taiwan. The author finds that the line in distinguishing the two is not crystal clear. The better way, in the author’s opinion, in analyaing and finding the answers to most situations, is to combine these two mathods.
Turing to the amended draft of the Act, on the one hand, the amended draft to Article 18 places the vertical price restriction in the Chapter entitling “Restraint of Competition.” This has changed nature of Article 18 from the rules of effectiveness to be rules of prohibition, and broaden the span of control, including the “Service”. On the other hand, the amended draft to Article 19, subsection 4 and 5, confounded the concept between restraint of competition and unfair competition behavior, which makes the Article 19 even harder to explain.
With profound study on the administrative penalties made from Fair Trade Commission and court’s decision, the thesis concludes with the following suggestions: canceling Article 18, and covering vertical price or nonprice restriction by Article 19, subsection 6. Also, the thesis also provides a new method in investigating procedure.

並列關鍵字

Resale price maintenance ； Per se rule ； relu of reason ； Economics analysis ； Fair competition

參考文獻

（18）劉連煜，關係企業是否適用我國公平法聯合行為管制規範，台大法學論叢，1993年，第23卷第1期。

（3）林忠義，法律經濟分析的實際運用與極限，律師雜誌，2009年1月，第352期。

（7）陳志民，經濟分析適用於公平交易法之價值、例示與釋疑，財產法暨經濟法，2011年，第27期。

（3）蔡淑柔，從美國Leegin案出發探討我國限制轉售價格之規範，國立中興大學科技法律研究所碩士論文，2010年。

（1）Breit, William & Kenneth G. Elzinga, THE ANTITRUST CASEBOOK – MILESTONES IN ECONOMIC REGULATION (3rd ed., 2008).